Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Mike Utinne

If majority of Canadians hate America, why doesn't Canada ban everything American?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Except when they increase, right?

 

 

46 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The military is a contradiction, on the one hand they are indoctrinating you to mass murder, on the other hand they want civil servants in uniform for public consumption.

It's gladiator school, run by weenies at the top.   If you are as aggressive as the job requires, you inevitably come into conflict with the weenie chain of command.

 

 

 

In the US military we say, there's no good NCO without an Article 15.

If you are doing your job in the military, eventually you'll run afoul of some shithead above you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Carlus Magnus said:

 

 

In the US military we say, there's no good NCO without an Article 15.

If you are doing your job in the military, eventually you'll run afoul of some shithead above you.

 

And you can't just decline a fight, if someone  calls you out, you gotta show up, if that means a section 129, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

The military is a contradiction, on the one hand they are indoctrinating you to mass murder, on the other hand they want civil servants in uniform for public consumption.

It's gladiator school, run by weenies at the top.   If you are as aggressive as the job requires, you inevitably come into conflict with the weenie chain of command.

 

 

I’m curious as to what you think the military is for.  Is it merely a welfare containment program for wayward and aggressive gun happy men or is it there to defend the people?  You’re arguing it’s more the former. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m curious as to what you think the military is for.  Is it merely a welfare containment program for wayward and aggressive gun happy men or is it there to defend the people?  You’re arguing it’s more the former. 

The military in a monarchy defends the sovereign.   The Queen defends the right, the soldiers of the Crown defend the Queen.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The military in a monarchy defends the sovereign.   The Queen defends the right, the soldiers of the Crown defend the Queen.

It’s symbolic.  You don’t recruit hundreds of thousands of people across the Commonwealth to defend one person.  Only an idiot would support or fight for such a cause.  The Queen stands for the people.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

It’s symbolic.  You don’t recruit hundreds of thousands of people across the Commonwealth to defend one person.  Only an idiot would support or fight for such a cause.  The Queen stands for the people.  

So say the disloyal leftist republicans of the Liberal and New Democratic parties..  Hang them from the lampposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s symbolic.  You don’t recruit hundreds of thousands of people across the Commonwealth to defend one person.  Only an idiot would support or fight for such a cause.  The Queen stands for the people.  

 

No, it is not symbolic.

The Queen is the sovereign and personification of Canada as a matter of constitutional law.

It is not for S & G's .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

So say the disloyal leftist republicans of the Liberal and New Democratic parties..  Hang them from the lampposts.

No.  That’s where you’re wrong.  Parliamentary democracy going back to the Magna Carta limits the monarch’s power.  A monarch who works counter to the interests of the people will be in peril.  Any good monarch knows his/her job is to support the people and ensure that the parliament represents the people’s interests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

No.  That’s where you’re wrong.  Parliamentary democracy going back to the Magna Carta limits the monarch’s power.  A monarch who works counter to the interests of the people will be in peril.  Any good monarch knows his/her job is to support the people and ensure that the parliament represents the people’s interests. 

The Queen will not be in peril from people who we have liquidated for treason.  Dead lefties are no threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, it is not symbolic.

The Queen is the sovereign and personification of Canada as a matter of constitutional law.

It is not for S & G's .

 

If you mean that they are synonymous in that a threat to one is a threat to the other, Queen and subjects, fine.  If you think the whole operation exists to protect one person, not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

If you mean that they are synonymous in that a threat to one is a threat to the other, Queen and subjects, fine.  If you think the whole operation exists to protect one person, not true. 

 

I don't care how the ruling monarch is protected, but it is not accurate to dismiss the Queen as "symbolic".

As currently defined...no monarch...no Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

The Queen will not be in peril from people who we have liquidated for treason.  Dead lefties are no threat.

I will tell you that a Canadian soldier or civilian who works to harm the country and it’s citizens is committing treason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't care how the ruling monarch is protected, but it is not accurate to dismiss the Queen as "symbolic".

As currently defined...no monarch...no Canada.

Since 1982, simple assent of parliament, senate, court and GG, could end the “Queen of Canada.” No one is calling for that.  Part of our culture, history, and institutions.  No revolutions needed.  Australia is more likely to become a republic than Canada.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I will tell you that a Canadian soldier or civilian who works to harm the country and it’s citizens is committing treason.  

Treason is only if you break an oath,  I took an oath to mass murder the enemies of the Queen, those who claim she is mere "figurehead" are the traitors.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Treason is only if you break an oath,  I took an oath to mass murder the enemies of the Queen, those who claim she is mere "figurehead" are the traitors.

Wrong entirely.  The Queen has no political power over Canada.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Since 1982, simple assent of parliament, senate, court and GG, could end the “Queen of Canada.” No one is calling for that.  Part of our culture, history, and institutions.  No revolutions needed.  Australia is more likely to become a republic than Canada.  

 

That's right...firmly embedded in constitutional law...not symbolic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wrong entirely.  The Queen has no political power over Canada.  

Sovereign, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, none of your treasonous republican assertions are reflected in the constitution.

Even for a buffoonish Canadian academic you are laughably ignorant.  Even the Americans know more about it than you.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's right...firmly embedded in constitutional law...not symbolic.

 

The Queen is ceremonial.  Actually the GG has even taken over that role.  There is the reservation to dissolve parliament if it worked against the people, but that is also the role of the GG.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Sovereign, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, none of your treasonous republican assertions are reflected in the constitution.

Even for a buffoonish Canadian academic you are laughably ignorant.  Even the Americans know more about it than you.

The GG carries those titles and is appointed by the PM in Canada, unlike in Great Britain where the monarch is hereditary.  The word sovereign is generally associated with the monarch, but it is used to denote independence of title, both for personage and country. 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Queen is ceremonial.  Actually the GG has even taken over that role.  There is the reservation to dissolve parliament if it worked against the people, but that is also the role of the GG.  

 

 

Getting back on topic, look at the bright side:   Canada retains a constitutional soverign with lots of corgis as a distinct difference from the Americans.

It helps to define the Canadian identity....NOT American (republican).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

The GG carries those titles and is appointed by the PM in Canada, unlike in Great Britain where the monarch is hereditary.  

Not according to the Canada Act 1982

According to the Canada Act of 1982, the Queen's constitutional authority over Canada is not altered by repatriation in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Not according to the Canada Act 1982

According to the Canada Act of 1982, the Queen's constitutional authority over Canada is not altered by repatriation in any way.

Except that she has zero authority over the electorate.  Her authority is in the GG by appointment of the elected PM, and it’s an extraordinarily limited authority.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Except that she has zero authority over the electorate.  Her authority is in the GG by appointment of the elected PM, and it’s an extraordinarily limited authority.  

The electorate has the authority to vote for an MP, nothing more.

Your leftist fantasies about a People's Republic are simply not reflected in the law.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

The electorate has the authority to vote for an MP, nothing more.

Your leftist fantasies about a People's Republic are simply not reflected in the law.   

 

All Canadian politicians are elected or appointed by elected politicians.

Whether you’re in the employ of the People’s Republic, Russia, or the Trump administration, undermining liberal democratic Canada is what you’re doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

All Canadian politicians are elected or appointed by elected politicians.

Whether you’re in the employ of the People’s Republic, Russia, or the Trump administration, undermining liberal democratic Canada is what you’re doing.  

Here's the Constitution, show us the text where it says that the Queen is no longer Sovereign, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces;

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...